Monthly meeting April 2024

2023183

Paraglider (Civ Hang)

C208 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

Recommendation: The BHPA review training material with a view to including a structured lookout scan technique.

2023187

LS1 (Civ Gld)

DA42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023190

Cirrus (Civ Gld)

SR20 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023191

ATR 72 (CAT)

HK 36R (Civ Gld)

Scottish FIR (G)

C

2023193

Phantom 4 (Civ UAS)

TB20 (Civ FW)

Gloster ATZ (G)

E

2023194

C42 (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2023199

C152 (Civ FW)

C42 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023200

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

C208 (Civ FW)

Netheravon ATZ (G)

B

2023201

ASK21 (Civ Gld)

AW109 (Civ Comm)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2023202

PA28 (Civ FW)

Travelair 4000 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023203

Parachutists (Civ Para)

DA50 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

C

2023204

Kitfox Mk3 (Civ FW)

Sling 4 TSI (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

E

2023205

R44 (Civ Helo)

PA28 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

A

2023206

Eurofox (Civ FW)

PA28 (Civ FW)

Scottish FIR (G)

E

2023208

ASH26 (Civ Gld)

Unknown (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023209

C42 (Civ FW)

C172 (Civ FW)

London FIR (G)

B

2023211

PA38 (Civ FW)

DA42 (Civ FW)

Liverpool CTR (D)

C

Recommendation: Liverpool and Hawarden review their LoA with a view to:

1.     Affording additional consideration for pilots operating under VFR and conducting Instrument Approaches to Hawarden.

2.     Considering the application of a vertical separation buffer between Liverpool and Hawarden traffic.

2023213

Pegasus (Civ Gld)

EA500 (Civ Comm)

London FIR (G)

C

2023215

C152 (Civ FW)

C172 (Civ FW)

Dunkeswell ATZ (G)

A

2024027

24 Feb 24

~1700

C172

(Civ FW)

Drone

5436N 00540W

1NM NE Newtownards Airport

1800ft

Newtownards ATZ

(G)

The C172 pilot reports they were conducting a routine overhead join for RW21 when they noticed a black, blunted triangle-shape drone with red LED lighting in a zig-zag pattern around the edges and flying roughly parallel to RW21 on the live side of the circuit. It passed ahead and slightly above in dangerous proximity.

Reported Separation: ‘~100ft’

Reported Risk of Collision: NR

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2024028

26 Feb 24

1448

B787

(CAT)

Drone

5119N 00035E

3NM N Maidstone

FL105

London TMA

(A)

The B787 pilot reports that, approaching DET at 310kts, the FO looked up to see an object approaching dead-ahead. They were confused as it was not an aircraft or a bird, and they were startled. The object was closing rapidly, and then clearly apparent as a medium sized quadcopter with four downward facing blue lights. It approached almost head-on, slightly to the right-hand side. It was hard to estimate the distance but, given the clear definition of lights and shape detail, it was discussed to be potentially within 50ft of the FO’s windscreen. ATC was informed.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/ 50ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Swanwick controller reports that they were operating as the controller on TC SE bandboxed, when [the pilot of the B787] reported a drone with blue lights "straight down the middle". They took a note of the position, informed the Group Supervisor South and also informed the pilots of subsequent aircraft on the same track.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2024029

2 Mar 24

1720

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5128N 00022W

3NM E Heathrow

1100ft

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that they encountered a drone when at 3NM final for Heathrow RW27L, at 1100ft. The drone passed approximately 1m above and 3m left of the left wingtip. They continued the approach with the autopilot on and landed normally. They reported the incident to ATC and the local police came to consult with the Captain when on the ground.

Reported Separation: 3ft V/ 3m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Heathrow Air Arrivals controller reports that when approximately 3NM from touchdown, the A320 pilot reported that they had seen a drone at 1000ft on the approach. When asked for further details, regarding the drone’s position, the crew reported that it had nearly hit their wing. The following aircraft were warned, but no other pilot reported the presence of a drone.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where providence had played a major part in the incident and/or a definite risk of collision had existed.

A

2024030

3 Mar 24

0915

A320

(CAT)

Drone

5138N 00011W

IVO Barnet, London

FL080

London TMA

(A)

The A320 pilot reports that the Captain spotted a drone-like object at 0915 passing down the port side as the aircraft headed west around the Barnet area of London, at 8000ft and just before a turn to head east. It was a white, flat, drone shape. The aircraft was travelling at 220kts. It was just below and possibly within 30m of the port wingtip. It was hard to judge the size but must have been a large quadcopter type drone to be seen.

Reported Separation: 30m H

Reported Risk of Collision: N/R

The Heathrow INT N controller reports that the A320 was about 10NM west of LAM at FL080 when the crew reported the sighting of a drone. This was acknowledged, the crew then described the drone as white, flat and circular shaped. They subsequently continued their approach.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2024032

6 Mar 24

1445

Merlin

(RN)

Drone

5151N 00054W

1NM E Waddesdon

100ft

London FIR

(G)

The Merlin pilot reports that, while conducting low level (100-200ft AGL) navigation practice in the vicinity of Waddesdon, Buckinghamshire, the NHP called 'eyes in' as they checked their mapping. Around 20sec later, the HP alerted the crew to the presence of a drone in the 12 o'clock and called ‘breaking right’. The crew then witnessed a medium-sized black drone with a red light pass around 30m to the left of the aircraft at the same height.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/30m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 5

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, due to actions of the Merlin pilot there had been no risk of collision.

C

2024033

5 Mar 24

1310

Beagle Pup

(Civ FW)

Unk Obj

5250N 00142W

Tutbury

1300ft

London FIR

(G)

The Beagle Pup pilot reports that they initially thought that the object was a crow but didn't have wings. It then glinted in the sun and seemed to be dark blue. It was a very small drone or model aircraft. It may have been stationary. It was reported to Derby management.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/20m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 5

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C

2024034

08 Mar 24

1930

Yuunec Typhoon H

(Civ UAS)

Drone

5047N 00106W

Gunwharf Quays

350ft AGL

London FIR

(G)

The Yuunec Typhoon operator reports that after having obtained permission from the Spinnaker Tower area owners to operate from private land, they had launched their UAS from the plaza, south of the tower and moved east over the harbour, climbing to around 350ft AGL and transitioning to the hover to do some photography work. It had been at this moment that an unknown UAS came from around the rear of the tower at similar / same altitude and flew directly at their UAS. The Typhoon operator had climbed clear of the second UAS however the UAS alarms had sounded with its proximity sensors detecting the incursion. The second UAS had then continued south past buildings out of sight. The Typhoon UAS operator highly doubted that there had been a visual line of sight between that UAS and the operator.

Reported Separation: 0ft V/<5m H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were sufficient to indicate that it could have been a drone.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 7

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where safety had been much reduced below the norm to the extent that safety had not been assured.

B

2024040

25 Mar 24

1521

F35

(HQ Air (Ops)

Unk Obj

5234N 00115E

~5NM SW of Norwich Airfield

11,970ft AMSL

London FIR

(G)

The F35 pilot reports that whilst conducting a 180° turn in Line Abreast formation, a dark object passed at high speed down the right-hand side of the canopy, approximately 200-300ft from the aircraft and slightly below. The pilot reports that they did not get a clear look at it but judged it to be the wrong shape and size to be a bird. It had been behind the aircraft before avoiding action could be taken. The incident was reported to Marham Zone within 1min of occurrence. The pilot reports that they then moved away from the area to continue the sortie. From tape review, the drone had not been visible on recorded HMD and there had been no radar SA.

Reported Separation: Slightly below/200-300ft H

Reported Risk of Collision: High

The Marham Supervisor reports that they had been the Supervisor when, [formation callsign] reported an Airprox with a drone on the Approach Controller’s frequency. The Supervisor then obtained an appropriate location utilising the Lat-Long feature on the radar. They spoke with the pilot and asked if they had a description and height of the drone. They reported a small drone at 12,000ft west of Norwich. The Supervisor informed military police, Swanwick/D&D, Norwich radar, DCF and Operations. No contact of the drone had been painting on radar.

In the Board’s opinion the reported altitude and/or description of the object were such that they were unable to determine the nature of the unknown object.

Applicable Contributory Factors: 4, 5

Risk: The Board considered that the pilot’s overall account of the incident portrayed a situation where although safety had been reduced, there had been no risk of collision.

C